BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    1
1





   SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
                  DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN


AB 301 -  Wright                                  Hearing  
Date:  July 13, 1999                 A
As Amended:         July 7, 1999             FISCAL       B
                                                             
  
                                                             
  3
                                                             
  0
                                                             
  1


                         DESCRIPTION
  
  Current law  permits the California Public Utilities  
Commission (CPUC) to modify its decisions after giving  
proper notice and giving parties an opportunity to be  
heard.

  This bill  requires the CPUC to permit interested parties to  
petition to adopt, amend, or repeal any regulation adopted  
by the CPUC.  The CPUC is required to consider the petition  
within six months and either deny the petition or open a  
proceeding to adopt, amend, or repeal the regulation  
addressed by the petition.  If the petition is denied, the  
CPUC shall state its reasons for denying it, and if the  
petition is approved, the CPUC may use any process for  
considering how to adopt, amend, or repeal the regulation.

  This bill  state legislative intent that this process not be  
used to ask the CPUC to reconsider any or all of its  
decisions or for asking the CPUC to reconsider recently  
decided matters where there have been no changes in  
circumstance.  The bill further states legislative intent  
that this process apply to rules of general applicability  
and future effect, thereby excluding decisions regarding  
individual company rate cases.

                        KEY QUESTIONS











                               
1.Does the benefit of giving parties another way to force  
  the CPUC to reconsider many of its prior decisions  
  outweigh the risk that this access will be abused by  
  parties seeking multiple bites at the apple?

2.Will the provision allowing the CPUC to use  any  process  
  to consider modifying a regulatory decision actually  
  close access to the decision-making process for some  
  parties?

                          BACKGROUND
  
  Making Sure Everyone Has A Voice  .  This bill was introduced  
to further the discussion concerning regulatory change at  
the CPUC and to ensure that interested parties, such as  
utilities and consumer groups, can bring issues before the  
CPUC and have them dealt with in a timely manner.

The author notes that the Administrative Procedures Act  
specifically authorizes interested parties to file  
petitions with state agencies regarding regulations and to  
have those petitions responded to in a timely manner.  This  
bill arguably extends those same provisions to the CPUC  
decision-making process.

                           COMMENTS

1.Horse & Buggy Regulations  .  Supporters of this bill  
  contend it provides interested parties with a way to  
  force the CPUC to reconsider decisions which the parties   
  think are unthoughtful or dated.  

  2.How Many Bites Does That Apple Have In It?   It should be  
  noted that while the bill provides interested parties  
  with better access to the CPUC's decision-making process,  
  this "access" could also be used by disgruntled parties  
  who simply want a third and fourth bite at the apple.   
  Parties who have lost a decision at the CPUC already have  
  a "second" bite - they can petition the CPUC for  
  rehearing.  This bill allows those same parties to  
  petition the CPUC again and again, each time forcing the  
  CPUC to respond, though this type of abuse is discouraged  
  in the bill's intent language.   











  The bill clearly makes it easier to contest CPUC  
  regulations, but because the CPUC regulations fall  
  heaviest on the incumbent utilities, it should be clear  
  that those parties are the most likely to take advantage  
  of the new opportunity presented by this bill.

  1.What Does "Any Process" Mean?   Page 3, Lines 22-25 of the  
  bill states that in the event the CPUC accepts a petition  
  to modify a regulation, the CPUC is permitted to use  any   
  process to consider that modification.  

  Consequently, if a regulation was developed using an  
  evidentiary process, the CPUC could amend that regulation  
  using a less rigorous public notice and comment process,  
  which doesn't require evidence or permit cross  
  examination.  

   The author and Committee may wish to consider  whether it  
  would be more consistent to, if the CPUC agrees to modify  
  a regulation, require it to use the same process it used  
  to create the regulation initially.  Therefore, if a  
  regulation was created using an evidentiary hearing  
  process, then it should be modified using an evidentiary  
  hearing process; if it was a public notice and comment  
  process, then the modification should be made using a  
  notice and comment process.  
  
                       ASSEMBLY VOTES
  
Assembly U & C                     (10-0)
Assembly Floor                     (76-0)

                          POSITIONS
  
  Support:
  Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA)
GTE
PUC

  Oppose:
  None reported to Committee.












Randy Chinn 
AB 301 Analysis
Hearing Date:  July 13, 1999